Kotaku: Fallout 3 is broken

[zioburosky13]

We all are playing off the same code/PC version... So it can't "only" be the game that is causing certain users trouble. It HAS to be, at least in part, the users system build, ie hardware/software conflicts.

Most console port game has bugs when run on a PC due to different customization of hardware.
On the other hand, PC ported to Console rarely has bugs because of close-platform.
While some people will fed up and getting a console to play, they will also sacrifice the freedom of getting FREE modification (horse armor, anyone?)

 

[Zumbs]

Having browsed the BSF hardware issues forums it is pretty obvious that a lot of people are having issues. But given the sales, I'm unsure if it is a significant minority.

Like I said, you never can tell (not all people with issues post on the BSF hardware forum; that's in fact a minority of the people having problems already), but there is a point where you simply have to admit "this game is having too many issues and should have been delayed or have been given a 0-day patch". Nobody denies that this was the case for Fallout 2 or STALKER: CS, and I'm unsure what excuses you can make to state this wasn't the case for Fallout 3, especially since it actually manages to be broken even on consoles.

I'm not making excuses. I was pointing out that this game is rumored to have sold very well, which means that the number of people with issues is likely to be larger than ie. Oblivion, even if percentage of people with issues is lower (if that is the case).

MERP?

I think MERP, depending on the version and implementation, is simpler than GURPS.

At least the version I played was, but I don't remember what edition that was.

I never did play GURPS, but I read the rule book - seemed simple enough - but I seem to remember that MERP had tables, and you had to roll on these tables for everything. Or was that Rolemaster? I forget

The fact that is locks up and crashes on CONSOLES should tell any thinking person that the game definitely has major problems. The excuse for PC's of "many different configurations" doesn't apply to the console world, and yet the game seems more buggy on the consoles than I have experienced on my PC. Think about that for a moment.

I was just about to point out that, as console hardware is not indestructible, a few people are bound to have trouble, when I read things like this:

Fallout 3 has the disctinction, in my household, as being the only game I've played on my PS1, 2 or 3 that has EVER crashed.

It sounds pretty bad.

As for my PS3 crashing, the worst part is that Beth, if history tells us anything, will sell me Dogmeat armour before thinking of working on a patch.

A sad, sad truth

 

[Monolith2013]

The bottom line is this... We all are playing off the same code/PC version... So it can't "only" be the game that is causing certain users trouble. It HAS to be, at least in part, the users system build, ie hardware/software conflicts.

How is that relevant?

If the end user has issues on his/her end with their own PC, then how is it soley the fault of Bethesda for the game not working? They can't test on every platform first off and secondly the EU has to take some responsibility for making sure their computer is capable of running the game/trouble shooting errors, etc.. We've all been there.

For example, I had trouble with Bioshock running on my 32" TV... It just wouldn't do it. With Crysis, I kept getting Atikmdag errors/random crashes until I discovered that I had a bad stick or RAM. But did I blame the game developers and claim their game was "broken"? And most recently, with Crysis: Warhead I have trouble with Psycho's cut scenes and now in Fallout (before the patch) I would get the exit game crash every now and then and i've had sound issues with the radio because of the headset i've been using.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well, thus far FOO has been the only game to crash annoyingly ofter on my new laptop. Every other game I can think of (UT3, Witcher EE, Overlord, DMC4, STALKER etc) ran just fine - except fo the old Infinity Engine games because of Vista driver issues.

The fact that the game CRASHES on consoles is by itself a very amusing fact. It's my first time hearing something like that.

BTW, Fallout3 does have a bug that prevents proceeding with the game (ie maxing the skill points before level 20), and I've heard of a couple of others here on NMA, so it IS broken.

 

[Ausir]

I never did play GURPS, but I read the rule book - seemed simple enough - but I seem to remember that MERP had tables, and you had to roll on these tables for everything. Or was that Rolemaster? I forget

Both. MERP is a simplified version of Rolemaster.

 

[Zumbs]

BTW, Fallout3 does have a bug that prevents proceeding with the game (ie maxing the skill points before level 20), and I've heard of a couple of others here on NMA, so it IS broken.

Some bugs are pretty hard to find, but that one sounds like one they should have caught well before release. But then again, Bethesda never got around to fixing the infamous vampire face bug, even though it is pretty easy to replicate.

I never did play GURPS, but I read the rule book - seemed simple enough - but I seem to remember that MERP had tables, and you had to roll on these tables for everything. Or was that Rolemaster? I forget

Both. MERP is a simplified version of Rolemaster.

Ahhh, yes, that's right.

 

[Brother None]

If the end user has issues on his/her end with their own PC, then how is it soley the fault of Bethesda for the game not working?

Who claimed at any point that it was solely Bethesda's fault? You don't seem to realise that distinction (as in who shares what part of the blame) is not relevant when considering how polished Fallout 3 is relative to other current releases. Not to mention it also crashes on consoles, which you conveniently ignore.

Some bugs are pretty hard to find, but that one sounds like one they should have caught well before release.

Crashes and technical glitches aside, I've run into 2 quest-ending bugs without even looking for them (one in Blood Ties, one in Big Trouble in Big Town) and multiple quest design glitches. You can't blame that on my PC.

 

[Monolith2013]

Who claimed at any point that it was solely Bethesda's fault? You don't seem to realise that distinction (as in who shares what part of the blame) is not relevant when considering how polished Fallout 3 is relative to other current releases. Not to mention it also crashes on consoles, which you conveniently ignore.

I'm not trying to ignore it, I'm simply not in a position to remark on the various console versions since I don't own one myself... That wouldn't be responsible of me as I am "NOT" informed and thus can not/should not generate an opinion of something I know nothing of. However, i've said a few times in this very thread that if the console versions are crashing then it's unnacceptable and the fault would lie with Bethesda since there is pratically no variance within the hardware of individual consoles (although I hear that the Xbox does overheat... Could the game be too "taxing", which would then call into question the stability/capabilities of the console rather than the code within the game?). Also, from the looks of it, it appears that the PS3 version is the worst but it was not among the 2 primary systems the game was developed for either.

At any rate, by saying that "Fallout 3 is broken", people are (by default) laying blame to it's developer... If that's not the case, then they should rephrase their concerns.

And finally... I'm not saying that FO3 "isn't" broken either, it very well could be, but i'm not one of the ones willing to go out there and say it is and blame the developer just because some people are having issues with the game.... Where's the proof that it's shitty coding or poor game design rather than it being any number of other reasons, ie EU system design/compatibility issues, hardware/software conflicts, OS versions, non-updated drivers, etc...

 

[Matt K]

At any rate, by saying that "Fallout 3 is broken", people are (by default) laying blame to it's developer... If that's not the case, then they should rephrase their concerns.

So who's fault is it when it crashes on a console? Frankly your opinion on console crashes is irrelevant. The fact that it crashes at all means that some portion of the code is bad. The gameplay bugs which occur in each version (essentially quest ending bugs) show bad coding. BS had 4 years to work on this (which itself is mostly reuses Oblivion code) and yet the product is very buggy. So your damn straight BS is at fault.

Sure there can be issues on a PC but at some point the developer has to take responsibility. That's what patches are all about. Unfortunately BS is typically silent once the game comes out (and by BS I mean the crew that's been in charge after Morrowind came out). If the buyers are lucky they may see a patch in a couple of months. Thank goodness I borrowed and didn't buy this game.

 

[Brother None]

At any rate, by saying that "Fallout 3 is broken", people are (by default) laying blame to it's developer...

No. This is software, no one will ever pretend all the fault lies with the developer, this isn't true for Fallout 2, it isn't for Fallout 3. By saying "Fallout 3 is broken", I'm saying that relative to other similar concurrent releases Fallout 3 has an inordinate amount of smaller and larger technical issues - to the point where game-breaking bugs and hard crashes are enough to tag on the nomer "broken". This whole business about PC configurations would be relevant if I were taking this case an sich, but I have been comparing it to other releases right off the bat: the state of PC gaming is at a certain level in hardware/software conflicts that will cause problems in as good as every PC game, that is an uncontested fact, but relative to that baseline level of flaws Fallout 3 and Oblivion stick out in a negative sense.

Where's the proof that it's shitty coding or poor game design rather than it being any number of other reasons, ie EU system design/compatibility issues, hardware/software conflicts, OS versions, non-updated drivers, etc...

Proof? We went over this, there is never hard proof. But that does not mean one can not call a game overly bugged or broken at some point, it was fairly fair to do so for Fallout 2 and it's pretty fair to do so for Fallout 3.

And you do realise it is in fact the job of anyone releasing on PC to take some amount of compatibility issues and OS versions into account, right? You're making it sound like it's ok to build a game for one specific PC build and if you don't have that build well then too bad.

Look, this is starting to get a bit annoying in how we twist around the simple, core issue here. I'm saying that incidental evidence is enough for a reasonable person to conclude that this game was buggier on release than is the industry standard, and the game was released with multiple hard-crash and quest-breaking (non-PC build related, note) bugs. By comparison, Fable II was released with 1 game-ending bug.

No, I don't have hard numbers - we never do.
Yes, it can be the fault of the PC - it always is.

Both points apply to every PC game out there, so you're not making an argument in favour of Fallout 3, you're just making excuses for PC gaming being broken in general. So back up a bit an explain pure and clear: what argument are you trying to make?

 

[Monolith2013]

At any rate, by saying that "Fallout 3 is broken", people are (by default) laying blame to it's developer...

No. This is software, no one will ever pretend all the fault lies with the developer, this isn't true for Fallout 2, it isn't for Fallout 3. By saying "Fallout 3 is broken", I'm saying that relative to other similar concurrent releases Fallout 3 has an inordinate amount of smaller and larger technical issues - to the point where game-breaking bugs and hard crashes are enough to tag on the nomer "broken". This whole business about PC configurations would be relevant if I were taking this case an sich, but I have been comparing it to other releases right off the bat: the state of PC gaming is at a certain level in hardware/software conflicts that will cause problems in as good as every PC game, that is an uncontested fact, but relative to that baseline level of flaws Fallout 3 and Oblivion stick out in a negative sense.

Where's the proof that it's shitty coding or poor game design rather than it being any number of other reasons, ie EU system design/compatibility issues, hardware/software conflicts, OS versions, non-updated drivers, etc...

Proof? We went over this, there is never hard proof. But that does not mean one can not call a game overly bugged or broken at some point, it was fairly fair to do so for Fallout 2 and it's pretty fair to do so for Fallout 3.

And you do realise it is in fact the job of anyone releasing on PC to take some amount of compatibility issues and OS versions into account, right? You're making it sound like it's ok to build a game for one specific PC build and if you don't have that build well then too bad.

Look, this is starting to get a bit annoying in how we twist around the simple, core issue here. I'm saying that incidental evidence is enough for a reasonable person to conclude that this game was buggier on release than is the industry standard, and the game was released with multiple hard-crash and quest-breaking (non-PC build related, note) bugs. By comparison, Fable II was released with 1 game-ending bug.

No, I don't have hard numbers - we never do.
Yes, it can be the fault of the PC - it always is.

Both points apply to every PC game out there, so you're not making an argument in favour of Fallout 3, you're just making excuses for PC gaming being broken in general. So back up a bit an explain pure and clear: what argument are you trying to make?

Honestly, I think we're agreeing on most of the core issues here, I simply think we're stating them differently or at least differeing on the wording. And no, I was not making an argument that PCs should be standardized either.

Far as any argument goes... I think Bethesda should take some flack for dropping the ball for sure, it's obvious they did at least in some capacity, but I just want people to understand that their frustrations shouldn't be expressed soley towards Bethesda either... There are many parties to blame here along with the Gamming market & development in general, but then again, what's new?

Personally, i'm glad FO3 has done well... I've enjoyed playing it and I have to say i'm a fan and i'm glad that i've had that experience and i'm sorry that some of you havent. I am a hardcore fan of the series like many of you and i've been a member of the community since the begining... I know how much Fallout means to us all and I think more than anything, i'm frustrated that there are so many people out there with negative opinions of this game. And by that I mean i'm frustrated by the market and game developers in gernal for not being able to please a lot of the fan base and dropping the ball in development. It's kinda like the "I don't like our customers very much... They're mean... Hey, I know, lets get new ones!" marketing strategy. But for me, i've had a good experience with this game, i've seen the capabilities of "what can be" along with what "currently is" and most of it pleases me... Hopefully this will reenergize the Fallout franchise and maybe the next go round some of you will have a better experience (if you still care by then)... But then again, speakin as a member of the FO fandom, I guess we all know that's wishfull thinking.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Far as any argument goes... I think Bethesda should take some flack for dropping the ball for sure, it's obvious they did at least in some capacity, but I just want people to understand that their frustrations shouldn't be expressed soley towards Bethesda either... There are many parties to blame here along with the Gamming market & development in general, but then again, what's new?

Who else (besides Zenimax) deserves flak for a Bethesda product that is broken? Even if it was hardware compatibility issues whose fault would it be? The only time it's not the developer's fault is when it's a problem with the OS, non-standard software conflicting with the game, or out of date drivers but those are all givens. Even so, most/enough of the problems with Fallout 3 are the fault of Bethesda and not the user or a third party.

 

[rcorporon]

Far as any argument goes... I think Bethesda should take some flack for dropping the ball for sure, it's obvious they did at least in some capacity, but I just want people to understand that their frustrations shouldn't be expressed soley towards Bethesda either... There are many parties to blame here along with the Gamming market & development in general, but then again, what's new?

Woah, woah, woah.

Since FO3 glitches, displays improper textures, and crashes my PS3, who other than Bethsoft should I be blaming?

Sony? Hardly. It's not a hardware issue.

If not Bethesda, then who?

 

[citixensinister]

Far as any argument goes... I think Bethesda should take some flack for dropping the ball for sure, it's obvious they did at least in some capacity, but I just want people to understand that their frustrations shouldn't be expressed soley towards Bethesda either... There are many parties to blame here along with the Gamming market & development in general, but then again, what's new?

Woah, woah, woah.

Since FO3 glitches, displays improper textures, and crashes my PS3, who other than Bethsoft should I be blaming?

Sony? Hardly. It's not a hardware issue.

If not Bethesda, then who?

I am amused to see him (Monolith2013) dance around that issue.

Althought I avoid consoles like the plague, I do know, however, that if a game consistantly crashes on a console, it is mostly the developer's fault.

It reminds me of a little child that sticks his fingers in his ears and go 'NAH, NAH, NAH!'.

Personally my experince with PC games have met with little crashes. The latest and most recent crash I have with a game would be Warcraft 3, and that was a 4-5 years old game. Having a game that consistantly crashes in PC would mean that the fault most likely lies with the developers. Like many in the thread has stated before, having used the same engine of Oblivion for Fallout3, there would be no excuses.

However, I do worry about Beths dedication to releasing patches. I feel that that would make or break the game for me.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Where's the proof that it's shitty coding or poor game design rather than it being any number of other reasons, ie EU system design/compatibility issues, hardware/software conflicts, OS versions, non-updated drivers, etc...

Here's the deal though. If the game can only run on certain systems well and not on others, and it has not been noted in the hardware requirements for the game, it's the developers' fault. It is part of the game-making process to test the game on different hardware and see how it fares. I have seen other games with issues like this given serious grief, so I do not see why this specific one should be exempt.

That aside, obvious quest-breaking bugs are pretty much inexcusable.

 

[Monolith2013]

Far as any argument goes... I think Bethesda should take some flack for dropping the ball for sure, it's obvious they did at least in some capacity, but I just want people to understand that their frustrations shouldn't be expressed soley towards Bethesda either... There are many parties to blame here along with the Gamming market & development in general, but then again, what's new?

Woah, woah, woah.

Since FO3 glitches, displays improper textures, and crashes my PS3, who other than Bethsoft should I be blaming?

Sony? Hardly. It's not a hardware issue.

If not Bethesda, then who?

I am amused to see him (Monolith2013) dance around that issue.

Althought I avoid consoles like the plague, I do know, however, that if a game consistantly crashes on a console, it is mostly the developer's fault.

It reminds me of a little child that sticks his fingers in his ears and go 'NAH, NAH, NAH!'.

Personally my experince with PC games have met with little crashes. The latest and most recent crash I have with a game would be Warcraft 3, and that was a 4-5 years old game. Having a game that consistantly crashes in PC would mean that the fault most likely lies with the developers. Like many in the thread has stated before, having used the same engine of Oblivion for Fallout3, there would be no excuses.

However, I do worry about Beths dedication to releasing patches. I feel that that would make or break the game for me.

Dancing? No, i've already addressed that more than 4 times in this thread, go back and read because i'm tired of repeating myself. Thanks.

 

[Series8217]

I'm certainly not the only one that notices that the more recently a member has signed up the more likely they are to be an irrational bethsoft worshipper.

They're not much different than trolls.

Ignore them and they'll go away.

 

[Typhoon]

I'm certainly not the only one that notices that the more recently a member has signed up the more likely they are to be an irrational bethsoft worshipper.

They're not much different than trolls.

Ignore them and they'll go away.

I recently signed up to contribute in the Fallout 3 Discussion. I admit, I like the game, even though its not Fallout 2. Its not Fallout at all. But its nevertheless an amazing game. No wonder, because its from Bethesda.

There sure are bugs in the game. Alot. But every Game has bugs. Live with it.
I don't even think F3 has as many bugs as F2, however, F3 is more complex and the graphics are a million times better.

So now you're free to ignore me, for I'm a Bethesda Troll.

 

[Jebus]

There sure are bugs in the game. Alot. But every Game has bugs. Live with it.

What the heck is wrong with you? Why would you ever argue this?

Do you work for Bethesda? Most likely not, given your location. Do you have Bethesda stock? Most likely not, because from your post I'm guessing you're somewhere between 13 and 16 years old.

What possible gain could you gather by defending, of all things, OF ALL THINGS, bugs? Who would defend bugs? It's simply mindboggling. I mean, that quote is comedy gold. It must be one of the most illogical and retarded things I've read in a long time. Mind me, I don't use the word 'retarded' to insult you, I use it in the litteral sense of the word. It's contrary to any sort of intellingent, logical thinking I can fanthom.

I don't think I, ever in my life, observed a consumer defending flaws in a product. Never. Heck, I think this must be a world-wide unicum!

I don't get how Bethesda can inspire such irrational loyalty in kids. I mean, they're not a particularly nice company to start with. If it were something like Iron Tower studios, I can relate because they have pretty good interaction with the fanbase, and are generally pretty likeable people. Bethesda? Not very much so.
You can also inspire loyalty by giving out quality products - yet I don't really see Bethesda doing that either. This very thread is a good example of that.

So now you're free to ignore me, for I'm a Bethesda Troll.

I hope don't mind, but I probably will.




Also, I wish people would stop relating to Tim Buckley as 'Buckley'. That last name, also shared by a certain musical genius, is just too sacred to be synonimous to crap like CTRL-ALT-DEL.

 

[Monolith2013]

I'm certainly not the only one that notices that the more recently a member has signed up the more likely they are to be an irrational bethsoft worshipper.

They're not much different than trolls.

Ignore them and they'll go away.

Well, Personally I had a much older account with NMA but my email was hacked, I use to go around as Europa13... Posted news w/duck and cover as well for a while... I remember back when DAC & V13 gave KellyX hell over at Fallout eXtreme for ripping cover art and posting the FOX logo all over them. I was also a member of The Order as well when Tactics came out. I've been around since the beginning... I've just been silent these past few years. ';0)

So yeah, just because someone has a new account doesn't mean they're Bethesda trolls or new to the series.